Additional Director of Income Tax (2007) 292 ITR 49 (Del) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ved & Co.

DCIT, GURUGRAM vs. RAJESH KUMAR, SONEPAT

In the result, cross-appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Rajesh Kumar, Vs Acit, C/O-Shiva Constructions Co., Central Circle-2, Plot No.69, Sidharth Enclave, Gurgaon. Delhi Road Sonipat, Sonipat, Haryana-131001. Pan-Bkspk2518K Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2018-19] Dcit, Vs Rajesh Kumar, Gurgaon. C/O-Shiva Constructions Co., Plot No.69, Sidharth Enclave, Delhi Road,Sonipat, Haryana-131001. Pan-Bkspk2518K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Umesh Takkar, Ca & Shri Saurabh Nagpal, Ca Respondent By Shri P N Barnwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2024 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : These Two Cross-Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-3, Gurgaon Dated 31.10.2022 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. Both Appeals Of The Assessee & The Revenue Are Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By Way Of Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

…ady filed is disposed of notice for reassessments under Section 148 cannot be issued, i.e., no reassessment proceedings can be initiated so long as assessment proceedings pending on the basis of the return already filed are not terminated. CIT vs. Ved and Co. 302 ITR 328 2. Delhi High Court where the lordships have rejected the revenue appeal against the order passed by tribunal and have opined that We are of the view that if no assessment had been made, there was no occasion for the AO to conclude that income had already escaped assessment. The facts of this case are exactly similar to the case of assessee. In t…

RAJESH KUMAR,SONEPAT vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GURGAON

In the result, cross-appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Rajesh Kumar, Vs Acit, C/O-Shiva Constructions Co., Central Circle-2, Plot No.69, Sidharth Enclave, Gurgaon. Delhi Road Sonipat, Sonipat, Haryana-131001. Pan-Bkspk2518K Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2018-19] Dcit, Vs Rajesh Kumar, Gurgaon. C/O-Shiva Constructions Co., Plot No.69, Sidharth Enclave, Delhi Road,Sonipat, Haryana-131001. Pan-Bkspk2518K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Umesh Takkar, Ca & Shri Saurabh Nagpal, Ca Respondent By Shri P N Barnwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2024 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : These Two Cross-Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-3, Gurgaon Dated 31.10.2022 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. Both Appeals Of The Assessee & The Revenue Are Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By Way Of Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

…ady filed is disposed of notice for reassessments under Section 148 cannot be issued, i.e., no reassessment proceedings can be initiated so long as assessment proceedings pending on the basis of the return already filed are not terminated. CIT vs. Ved and Co. 302 ITR 328 2. Delhi High Court where the lordships have rejected the revenue appeal against the order passed by tribunal and have opined that We are of the view that if no assessment had been made, there was no occasion for the AO to conclude that income had already escaped assessment. The facts of this case are exactly similar to the case of assessee. In t…

ACIT CIRCLE 16 (1) vs. TECHSPAN INDIA LTD,

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishi Assessment Year: 2000-01 Assistant Cit, Vs. M/S. Techspan India Ltd., Circle 16(1), 103- Ashoka Estate, New Delhi. 24-Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. (Pan: Aabct5650D) Cross-Obj. No. 157/Del/2008 ( In Ita No. 2655/Del/2007) Assessment Year: 2000-01 M/S. Techspan India Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, 103- Ashoka Estate, Circle 16(1), 24-Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aabct5650D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Cs Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. & R.P. Mall, Adv. Department By: Shri Anshu Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08 .12.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 04 :03.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Revenue Has Questioned First Appellate Order Basically On Two Grounds. Firstly, The Learned Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Directing The Assessing Officer To Allow Deduction Under Section 10A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 & Secondly In Directing The Assessing Officer To Set Off The Loss Of Rs.1,18,99,508. 2 2. The Assessee On The Other Hand In Its Cross Objection Has Raised Several Objections Including The Action Of The Learned Cit(Appeals) In Upholding The Validity Of Initiation Of Proceedings Under Sec. 147 Of The Act (Objection Nos. 1 & 2). In Objection No.3, The Action Of The Learned Cit(Appeals) In Recording A Finding That Assessee Had Not Claimed Any Deduction Under Sec. 10A Of The Act Has Been Objected & In Objection No.4, It Has Been Pleaded That The Learned Cit(Appeals) Ought To Have Held That Loss Suffered By The Assessee Was Allowable Business Loss To Be Carried Forward By Recording A Further Finding That The Invoices Were Raised At Arm’S Length Price.

…ted 6 further that in the present case, no notice under sec. 143(2) of the Act was issued, hence, there was no question of escapement of income. In this regard, he placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ved & Co. – 302 ITR 328 (Del.). He contended that subsequent to the order dated 26.7.2008 when the return was processed under sec. 143(1) of the Act, no fresh material surfaced and thus in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Orient Craft Ltd. – 354 ITR 356 (Del.) even otherwise the exemption of jurisdiction to frame assessment is unte…

NARENDER KUMAR SHARMA,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2008-09 Sh. Narendra Kumar Sharma Vs. Ito, Ward 1(4) M 219, Sector 12 Ghaziabad Pratap Vihar Ghaziabad

…he Act, reopening the assessment based on the very same material received by him in December,2008. Hence he submitted that the reopening For this proposition that such reopening is bad in law, he relied on the following case law. CIT vs. Ved & Co. Reported in 302 ITR 328 (b) That the reopening is bad in law for non application of mind and as there is no nexus between the finding of facts and the belief that the income has escaped the assessment. He argued that the A.O. acted on vague information. He submitted that it is not permissible to reopen the case just to make one more investigation. He contended that whe…

ROYAL JORDANIAN AIRLINES vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of and the writ petitions are allowed in the

…278, 279,280, 580/2006 & W.P(C) 16060, 16068/2006 Page 23 of 23 that support the Assessee. These are KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v. Additional Director of Income Tax (2007) 292 ITR 49 (Del) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ved & Co. (2008) 302 ITR 328(Del). This is, therefore, another reason why the notice under Section 148 of the Act for AY 1999-2000 is unsustainable in law. Conclusion 45. Consequently, the notices dated 23rd February 2006 issued to RJA under Section 148 of the Act and the rejection of the objections of RJA to the said notices by the order dated 18th September 2006 fo…

ROYAL JORDANIAN AIRLINES vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of and the writ petitions are allowed in the

…278, 279,280, 580/2006 & W.P(C) 16060, 16068/2006 Page 23 of 23 that support the Assessee. These are KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v. Additional Director of Income Tax (2007) 292 ITR 49 (Del) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ved & Co. (2008) 302 ITR 328(Del). This is, therefore, another reason why the notice under Section 148 of the Act for AY 1999-2000 is unsustainable in law. Conclusion 45. Consequently, the notices dated 23rd February 2006 issued to RJA under Section 148 of the Act and the rejection of the objections of RJA to the said notices by the order dated 18th September 2006 fo…

ROYAL JORDANIAN AIRLINES vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of and the writ petitions are allowed in the

…278, 279,280, 580/2006 & W.P(C) 16060, 16068/2006 Page 23 of 23 that support the Assessee. These are KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v. Additional Director of Income Tax (2007) 292 ITR 49 (Del) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ved & Co. (2008) 302 ITR 328(Del). This is, therefore, another reason why the notice under Section 148 of the Act for AY 1999-2000 is unsustainable in law. Conclusion 45. Consequently, the notices dated 23rd February 2006 issued to RJA under Section 148 of the Act and the rejection of the objections of RJA to the said notices by the order dated 18th September 2006 fo…

ROYAL JORDANIAN AILINES vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of and the writ petitions are allowed in the

…278, 279,280, 580/2006 & W.P(C) 16060, 16068/2006 Page 23 of 23 that support the Assessee. These are KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v. Additional Director of Income Tax (2007) 292 ITR 49 (Del) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ved & Co. (2008) 302 ITR 328(Del). This is, therefore, another reason why the notice under Section 148 of the Act for AY 1999-2000 is unsustainable in law. Conclusion 45. Consequently, the notices dated 23rd February 2006 issued to RJA under Section 148 of the Act and the rejection of the objections of RJA to the said notices by the order dated 18th September 2006 fo…

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. ROYAL JORDANIAN AIRLINES

The appeals are disposed of and the writ petitions are allowed in the

…278, 279,280, 580/2006 & W.P(C) 16060, 16068/2006 Page 23 of 23 that support the Assessee. These are KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v. Additional Director of Income Tax (2007) 292 ITR 49 (Del) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ved & Co. (2008) 302 ITR 328(Del). This is, therefore, another reason why the notice under Section 148 of the Act for AY 1999-2000 is unsustainable in law. Conclusion 45. Consequently, the notices dated 23rd February 2006 issued to RJA under Section 148 of the Act and the rejection of the objections of RJA to the said notices by the order dated 18th September 2006 fo…

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. ROYAL JORDANIAN AIRLINES

The appeals are disposed of and the writ petitions are allowed in the

…278, 279,280, 580/2006 & W.P(C) 16060, 16068/2006 Page 23 of 23 that support the Assessee. These are KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v. Additional Director of Income Tax (2007) 292 ITR 49 (Del) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ved & Co. (2008) 302 ITR 328(Del). This is, therefore, another reason why the notice under Section 148 of the Act for AY 1999-2000 is unsustainable in law. Conclusion 45. Consequently, the notices dated 23rd February 2006 issued to RJA under Section 148 of the Act and the rejection of the objections of RJA to the said notices by the order dated 18th September 2006 fo…

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. ROYAL JORDANIAN AIRLINES

The appeals are disposed of and the writ petitions are allowed in the

…278, 279,280, 580/2006 & W.P(C) 16060, 16068/2006 Page 23 of 23 that support the Assessee. These are KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v. Additional Director of Income Tax (2007) 292 ITR 49 (Del) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ved & Co. (2008) 302 ITR 328(Del). This is, therefore, another reason why the notice under Section 148 of the Act for AY 1999-2000 is unsustainable in law. Conclusion 45. Consequently, the notices dated 23rd February 2006 issued to RJA under Section 148 of the Act and the rejection of the objections of RJA to the said notices by the order dated 18th September 2006 fo…

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. ROYAL JORDANIAN AIRLINES

The appeals are disposed of and the writ petitions are allowed in the

…278, 279,280, 580/2006 & W.P(C) 16060, 16068/2006 Page 23 of 23 that support the Assessee. These are KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v. Additional Director of Income Tax (2007) 292 ITR 49 (Del) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ved & Co. (2008) 302 ITR 328(Del). This is, therefore, another reason why the notice under Section 148 of the Act for AY 1999-2000 is unsustainable in law. Conclusion 45. Consequently, the notices dated 23rd February 2006 issued to RJA under Section 148 of the Act and the rejection of the objections of RJA to the said notices by the order dated 18th September 2006 fo…

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. ROYAL JORDANIAN AIRLINES

The appeals are disposed of and the writ petitions are allowed in the

…278, 279,280, 580/2006 & W.P(C) 16060, 16068/2006 Page 23 of 23 that support the Assessee. These are KLM Royal Dutch Airlines v. Additional Director of Income Tax (2007) 292 ITR 49 (Del) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ved & Co. (2008) 302 ITR 328(Del). This is, therefore, another reason why the notice under Section 148 of the Act for AY 1999-2000 is unsustainable in law. Conclusion 45. Consequently, the notices dated 23rd February 2006 issued to RJA under Section 148 of the Act and the rejection of the objections of RJA to the said notices by the order dated 18th September 2006 fo…

KOHINOOR FOODS LTD. FORMERLY SATNAM OVERSEASLTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

…hat, faced with severe paucity of time, the AO had attempted to travel the path of Section 147 in the vain attempt to enlarge available the time for framing assessment. This is not permissible in law."  10. In *CIT Vs. Ved & Co.* 302 ITR 328 the Court held as under:- "There is no indication as to on what information or on what material the Assessing Officer harboured the recorded in the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax Appeals, no new material is on record after the filing of the return and till the issuance of the notice under Section 147. The proceedings under Section 147 a…